On 3/8/07, Florence Devouard <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote: I agree - which is why the simplified proposal only works through an OTRS queue handled by volunteers (similar to the permissions queue), and is voluntary. Why would such a person have a problem saying "I do not want to verify my credentials, thanks"? That seems like a simple enough thing to ask. Nobody proposes anything mandatory at this point (except perhaps that people have to tolerate simple disclaimer templates of their choice on their user page). But people can, and will, make reference to the credentials people claim on their user pages. Both the people claiming them, and others reading them. The Essjay case has shown this. Not each time. When some newspaper reports "Wikipedia claimed xy was a pedophile" and it is just a common case of vandalism that was fixed in 5 minutes, then we realize this is hyperbole and shouldn't result in immediate action. When USA Today had an editorial that showed that a serious case of personal attack vandalism remained for months, then this led to some positive reforms about living people biographies (much of the current en.wp policy on this topic was written after the incident). I do not regret these reforms in the slightest. In the fake credentials case, I also think some cautious reform steps are in order. We're not going to become a "credentialed encyclopedia", but it makes perfect sense to me to treat such statements with some disclaimers, in lieu of any verification. Irrespective of any media event, for a typical user, the simple fact that Wikipedians have thought about such things, and come up with a carefully balanced policy for them, would inspire some trust. Sticking our collective head in the sand is as dangerous as acting like we don't have one. I believe the credentials problem deserves serious attention. Therefore I think this is an important & healthy discussion, and I hope you will continue to contribute to it. -- Peace & Love, Erik DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees. "An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic

Florence Devouard wrote: Is there possible compromise between your position and Eric's? There are plenty of companies in the credential validation business. Most of them are set up for slightly different uses, but I'm sure there are some creative ones we could work with. The notion is that for anybody who would like their credentials validated, they can pay a third party to do the work. The Foundation would only get involved to select trusted vendors and verify the vendor accounts on Wikipedia. In addition to verifying credentials, they could perhaps verify real names, or that the user has only one verified Wikipedia account. For the limited cases where the Foundation wanted things verified, they could cover the cost of the verification; otherwise, people would be on their own. Personally, I don't have much of an opinion on this topic, but I thought I'd suggest the possibility. William -- William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri

William Pietri wrote: I would want to see some pretty strong evidence or arguments that verified credentials would actually have a significant positive value to Wikipedia before setting up such a system on our own, let alone paying for it. Really, I think we're working ourselves into a tizzy here over something that remains to be proved will have any long-term significance. "Scandals" flare up and die away all the time, many of them leaving almost no trace in the press or history books. Let's not hurriedly implement something just to maybe make it go away a little faster. I'm going to be giving a radio interview tomorrow morning about the Essjay affair and I plan to use it mostly as an opportunity to inform listeners about Wikipedia's status as a tertiary source and our policy of referencing stuff to outside sources. If people understood that better this molehill wouldn't seem nearly so mountainous, IMO. I don't imagine that setting up a system where Wikipedia editors have to pay money out of their own pockets to gain status on Wikipedia would be a good way to reduce bad press about us. :)

On 3/9/07, K P <kpbotany(a)gmail.com> wrote: Yeah, a whole bunch of false assumptions instantly get created and spread around with stories like this: - an "editor" is a priviledged position at Wikipedia (very common, presumably because "editor" has such a strong meaning to journalists) - editors with PHds are treated differently to those without - Wikipedia is written by so few editors that losing one would matter - Most editors edit under their real name - EssJay was an exception. Would using the term "contributor" instead of "editor" help? Steve

William Pietri wrote: The best counter for this perception problem, IMO, is not to convince people to trust Wikipedia's content because the people working on it are certified in some way - "expert" contributors is no guarantee of a good product. Rather, we should simply try to show that Wikipedia's _content_ is objectively good. The Nature study comparing article quality to Britannica is a good example, credentials and authorship never entered into it.

On 09/03/07, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote: A lot of editors put their organisational affiliation on their user page, or even a link to their university or organisational web page, which is of course immediately verifiable. But others don't want to put everything on their user page, precisely because of stunted obsessives like Brandt, or worse. It all comes down to starting with the assumption that people are basically honest and not going to lie. As I said, after this Essjay disaster, *no one* of good faith is going to fib about their credentials to cover their tracks ... - d.

On 3/10/07, stvrtg <stvrtg(a)gmail.com> wrote: I can provide multiple indpendent witnesses showing I use the name "geni" in meatspace. -- geni

On 3/8/07, William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com> wrote: For me, the external problem went well beyond the press. Essjay claiming Would somebody please provide a source for the claim that he used his fake credentials to "strongarm people" or to influence "content disputes?" I could simply repeat my belief that this assertion is far overstated, but instead Ill simply demand that people actually support their accusations with evidence. The citations Ive seen have been damning from a credentialist standpoint, but I have yet to see evidence that he used his fake credentials in the context of actual disputes. In contrast, over the years haven't we seen plenty of crackpots with claimed credentials abuse these in a way which has been much more disruptive? But I think the real problem came when he claimed to The press didnt take it as a story in which Essjay misrepresented himself to the press. They ran it as a story in which Essjay's wiki credentials were somehow based on false academic credentials. The fact is that we don't base wiki credentials on academic ones, and it is precisely this reason why Wikipedia has slightly more than 24 peer reviewed articles. As the Chronicle of Higher Education wrote, "But the incident is clearly This is nonsense. Essjay's standing was never based on his academics, it was based on his work and community involvement. Wikipedia's credibility doesn't rest on credentials, but on its content. Which suffers not thanks to its many anonymous and knowledgeable contributors, credentialed or otherwise. Looking at [[User:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification]] it looks like Im with Anthere on this one, its just unimaginative reactionism. -Stevertigo

On 3/9/07, William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com> wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard/Essjay#Outside… I didnt ask you if you could provide links to examples where he flaunted his credentials. I asked you to provide a source for the claim that he used his flaunted credentials in the ways that people have characterized him to have done. Ironically, I asked for this same clarification on [[Essjay controversy]] - adding a {{fact}} tag to the statement: "However, after reviewing evidence that the false credentials had been used in Wikipedia content disputes with other editors." The {{fact}} was replaced by a ref to the NYT article, but the NYT article itself doesnt assert this claim, but rather it cites two interpretations, one by Michael Snow: MS: "People have gone through his edits and found places where he was basically cashing in on his fake credentials to bolster his arguments," "Those will get looked at again." The other is by Jimbo, made in his own defense: "my past support of Essjay in this matter was fully based on a lack of knowledge about what has been going on." The statement "What has been going on" is ambiguous: someone who knows "what's going on" might understand Essjay's misrepresentations to be unacademic and damaging to himself, but it also leaves the door open to the overstated view that he "abused his fake credentials"... "in the context of disputes." The NYT story doesnt support the latter, (hence it doesnt satisfy the {{fact}} tag and has to be removed) but instead states it properly (as a POV) that: "Some Wikipedia users argued that Essjay had compounded the deception by flaunting a fictional Ph.D. and professorship to influence the editing on the site." Interpretations made by Wikipedians are quoted in a newspaper, which is in turn cited in Wikipedia. Where are the RS nazis when you need them? Note that I personally don't think part was a huge deal; as I mention uninterested in credentials anyhow, I think this did little harm. Its nice to hear you moderating your tone. "Didn't do a lot" is interpretive. 20K edits is plenty, and as some news stories have spun it, represent a possibly contaminated body of work. Essjay's internal standing was not based on his academics. However, his No, they were based on a recommendation by the Foundation. The scandal (internal) is that Jimbo placed trust in him in accordance with his wiki credentials, and the story (media) is how the worlds of academic representation and internet identity collided. Over time Wikipedia has grown in its appeal to experts. It started off as something experts wouldnt touch, and has proven itself to be worthwhile for them to contribute to. There still remains the damaging perception that Wikipedia's openness is its peril. Sadly, I think the only peril here came with Jimbo's appointment of Essjay. Perhaps all of this anger at Essjay is really just a dislike how Jimbo's powers of appointment somehow represents a dismissal for the wisdom of the masses. Unfortunately there was no such wisdom that found Essjay out until after he was appointed. This whole asking for credentials thing only has meaning in the context of Jimbo making appointments. If Essjay had been elected, the community itself would have been duped and there wouldn't have been much of a stink made about it. An election process would no doubt have involved a prior investigation in which case there would have been no after the fact scandal. -Stevertigo

On 3/8/07, Florence Devouard <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote: I think it's clear that we're evolving towards a completely voluntary system here. That is fine, but in return, I think it is reasonable that such a system will operate using all available tools, including OTRS. There can be no reasonable argument, in my view, that it would be improper or a "drain on volunteer resources" for us to set up an OTRS queue to help with credentials verification. If people want to join the queue, they will; if they don't, they will not -- the system is voluntary and optional in the first place, and if it does not scale, it will simply not be adopted. OTRS is just a tool here, it does not imply any official role of the Wikimedia Foundation. I think we can come up with a guideline that involves user templates, OTRS-based verification, and possibly even web of trust style mechanisms, and then we'll figure out if users adopt it or not. IMHO the very fact that a subset of users would follow such a guideline would help to instill a healthy sense of skepticism towards statements of credentials. -- Peace & Love, Erik DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees. "An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic

On 08/03/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com> wrote: More importantly, I'm not sure it does have a point except in extreme cases. Essjay got all the community jobs going because he earnt them through doing lots of hard work well. His edits using his claimed credentials were few compared to that. But the latter were enough to have him asked to resign all the former. I think the example of Essjay, and the community approbation at his falsely-claimed credentials, demonstrates that "don't lie on your userpage" is *already* an implicit rule, and doesn't need a special rule (per Shelton) or a registry for credentials (per Jimbo or Erik) - editors of good faith won't lie about credentials. Many even link to their university or company. - d.

On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 10:58:28 -0500 (EST), "Jeff Raymond" <jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote: Credentials are, in my view, not that important; I do, however, find it easier to trust those who have a few grey hairs. Maybe we need age verification :o) Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG